Speaking about Texas' TOOTHLESS Open Records Laws....

"He who covers his sins will not prosper,
But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy."
Proverbs 28:13

Obviously, this author just filed an official complaint with the Attorney General's office against the University of Houston over their stonewalling related to their football program.  We will confess that we used this afternoon's TPPF/Texas Tribune event "Open Government, Engaged Citizens: A Conversation on Texas' Public Information Act," as a deadline to get the complaint filed.  That's now happened.

Texas' public information laws, while they look good on the surface, have more holes than Swiss cheese.  One tactic that has recently gained in popularity is to launder governmental funds through shell "non-profits" or allegedly "private" entities.  Austin's ongoing Amazon fiasco, the recent troubles with the Alamo, and a 2015 Texas Supreme Court decision related to the "Greater Houston Partnership" are recent examples of this phenomenon.

Senator Kirk Watson discussed several bills he carried this past session to close various loopholes in the Public Information Act.  All of Watson's bills passed the Senate with overwhelming majorities.  Unfortunately, they all died in the house [Note: What else is new?!?].

Todd Hunter gave a "woe is me" speech about how he totally supports Open Government, but it just got lost in the shuffle of a busy end-of-session period in the house.  Of course, Hunter neglected the fact that he's the chair of the Calendars committee, which might give him leverage over a recalcitrant committee chairman.  Hunter made a bunch of vague promises as it relates to transparency issues next session.  That being said, Hunter did make an interesting point about many of the 'recovery' related contracts from Hurricane Harvey having major disclosure issues.

Watson and Hunter both plugged a Joint Interim committee that was created this past session to study the issue.  Unfortunately, neither chamber has appointed any members.  Isn't that revealing....

James Quintero of TPPF spoke of the need for the Attorney General to have greater enforcement powers.  He also explained the need to repeal certain provisions that have been interpreted to allow "economic development" discussions to occur in secret.  He also discussed his frustrations trying to get information out of the City of Austin related to the Amazon 'negotiations,' a frustration we share.

Bottom Line: Texas' Public Information laws are a joke.  But we know how to fix them.  Whether or not the political will to do so exists in the Texas house remains an open question....

#atxcouncil: Austin Chamber Finds its voice over Sick Leave Mandate

"as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,"
1 Peter 2:2

Better late than never (we suppose), via. today's Austin Chronicle:

That assertion became more relevant earlier this week when the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce released a statement expressing "contingent opposition" to the ordinance and asking for more research and at least a 90-day delay. "The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors is opposed to this ordinance," the statement reads, "if the Council does not contract for an appropriate independent [economic impact] study and does not provide the public 90 days to give feedback before they take a vote."

What the hell took you so long?!?

However we got here, this is still a positive development.  This sick leave mandate would be a nightmare for anyone who wants a job in the City of Austin, and it's good to see employers belatedly speak up.  Welcome aboard.

Ironically enough, we were just wondering yesterday how this mandate would impact the Amazon bid; guess we know now.

Either way, it looks like the needle has moved in a positive direction since last September.

Bottom Line: We'll take it....

Now that we're a "finalist," will the public ever get to see the "Austin's" Amazon bid?!?

"For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."
Luke 8:17

A new development:

Austin and Dallas are among 20 North American metropolitan areas being considered for a second headquarters for Amazon, the online retail giant announced Thursday morning.

The cities were among several in Texas that had been competing to lure the company. Competition has been fierce, since Amazon says it plans to invest $5 billion in its new headquarters and create "as many as 50,000 high-paying jobs" in the city it picks.

Thursday's list eliminates two major Texas cities — Houston and El Paso — that were also vying for the spot. Despite initial plans to do so, San Antonio did not submit a bid to host the company's second headquarters. City officials told Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in October that "blindly giving away the farm isn't our style."

....

In a brief statement Thursday morning, Austin Mayor Steve Adler recognized that "mobility and affordability" are among the city's greatest challenges in attracting businesses like Amazon, and said the city council is focused on addressing those two concerns.

Cities across North America have offered major economic incentives in attempts to lure Amazon, including tax breaks and land. And while some cities have publicly offered up their proposals to the tech giant — New Jersey, for example, has pledged up to $7 billion in tax incentives, and Chicago officials offered Amazon credits totaling about $1.32 billion in income taxes — Texas cities have stayed quieter about what they're willing to put on the table.

Austin city officials said in October that no local financial incentives were included in their bid for the headquarters. Adler said Thursday he still has not heard any talk about offering local incentives.

Mike Berman, spokesman for the Austin Chamber of Commerce, called the bid a "great success" but wouldn't offer details on any specific sites that the city proposed.

Cool...you guys want to share any of that information with the public?!?  Or are we just supposed to glean tidbits here and there from open records requests?!?

Bottom Line: We remain neutral on this project pending the receipt of more information.  That being said, the fact that we've been discussing an Amazon bid for three months without more information being forthcoming is very frustrating.  At a minimum, the optics surrounding this secretive process continue to stink....

Tech-industry Sex Trafficking in Seattle Report raises MAJOR questions about Austin's Amazon Bid

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
Galatians 6:7

Shot:

Austin and Atlanta share the best odds of landing Amazon's HQ2, says Irish betting site PaddyPower.

Back in October, PaddyPower put Atlanta’s odds of landing Amazon’s $5 billion second headquarters at 2-to-1, beating Austin (3-to-1) and Boston (6-to-1).

But as of Dec. 31, PaddyPower reports that Atlanta and Austin each share a 3-to-1 chance of landing HQ2.

Chaser:

Silicon Valley’s Female Problem was well-known long before the #MeToo movement started toppling piggish men in media, politics and the arts. But emails obtained by Newsweek reveal another sordid corner of the tech sector’s treatment of women: a horny nest of prostitution “hobbyists” at tech giants Microsoft, Amazon and other firms in Seattle’s high tech alley.

The emails from the men, some hoovered up in a sting operation against online prostitution review boards, are all similar, often disguised as replies to wrong addresses.

“I think you might have the wrong email address,” wrote one man from his Amazon work address to a brothel.

....

The cache of tech company emails were obtained by Newsweek via a public records request to the King County Prosecutor’s Office. Law enforcement authorities have been collecting them from brothel computers over the last few years; some were obtained in connection with a 2015 sting operation that netted high-level Amazon and Microsoft directors.

....

The cache of emails shared with Newsweek date between 2014 and 2016, and included 67 sent from Microsoft, 63 sent from Amazon email accounts and dozens more sent from some of Seattle’s premier tech companies and others based elsewhere but with offices in Seattle, including T-Mobile and Oracle, as well as many local, smaller tech firms. The men who sent the emails have not been charged, and Newsweek is not identifying them.

....

The sting arrested 17 men and one woman, but only a director at Amazon and another director at Microsoft opted for a trial. The trial date has been repeatedly pushed back and is now scheduled for March 2018. None of the sex workers involved in those case were charged.

....

When Newsweek sought comment from Amazon this week, a spokeswoman first asked to see the emails sent by Amazon employees (unlike Microsoft, Amazon had apparently not requested the emails from authorities). Newsweek shared an Excel list with the senders’ names redacted, and when the spokeswoman said she couldn’t comment without seeing more, Newsweek emailed one full email.

Today, Amazon informed Newsweek that it is “investigating” the matter and provided this statement by email: “Amazon’s Owner’s Manual clearly states that, ‘It is against Amazon’s policy for any employee or Contingent Worker to engage in any sex buying activities of any kind in Amazon’s workplace or in any work-related setting outside of the workplace, such as during business trips, business meetings or business-related social events.’ When Amazon suspects that an employee has used company funds or resources to engage in criminal conduct, the company will immediately investigate and take appropriate action up to and including termination. The company may also refer the matter to law enforcement.”

Now, obviously, you don't want to paint too broad of a brush.  63 bad actors out of a company with over 500,000 employees isn't necessarily terrible.   But we're not talking about trying to launch a boycott or take-down the company.

But it is to say that we need a full and complete accounting of what happened BEFORE they receive any sort of "incentive" package to move here (and our previously stated questions about the merits of the project still apply).

Finally, we'll note Amazon's response sounds familiar.

Bottom Line: This question needs to be addressed (the sooner the better).

#TXLEGE: Questions about Unintended Consequences BEFORE we eliminate property taxes

"For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it—"
Luke 14:18

Last week, RPT announced the questions that have been placed on the March 2018 ballot; they include the following question related to property taxes:

Texas should replace the property tax system with an appropriate consumption tax equivalent. Yes/No

We've spoken favorably about this idea in the past. We'd still like to see it happen. But a personal experience from this past week gives us pause.

On Wednesday, this author made a small purchase on Amazon during we we remembered something obvious: STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW FROM CHARGE SALES TAXES ON A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ONLINE PURCHASES.

That got us thinking:

• Do we really want to move towards a tax system where the fastest growing part of the tax base is already carved out?!?
  
  One of the best arguments for moving to a consumption tax is that, at least in theory, it should broaden the tax base.  But the federal prohibition on online sales taxes is a pretty significant narrowing.  Furthermore, this narrowing is only going to grow over time.

• Are we prepared to ask the Feds to allow online sales taxes?!?
  
  And, if so, for what are they going to ask in return?!?

• If we carve out online sales, will the final result be a tax system that is overly reliant on rich people (with the attendant revenue swings)?!?
  
  The long term trend is that the middle class is moving their shopping online, while brick and mortar retail shopping is becoming a leisure activity for rich people.  Thus, any tax system that taxes brick and mortar purchases while carving out online sales will be reliant on purchases by rich people.  As we have learned from California, a system of taxation that is excessively reliant on rich people can lead to wild swings in revenue when the economy changes.

• If we ask the Feds to permit online sales taxes, and they say yes, what shenanigans would such a move enable other states to pull?!?

• Are the costs of permitting online sales taxes worth the benefits of eliminating property taxes?!?
  
  In the past, we've opposed online sales taxes.  The arguments against doing so remains strong.  Suffice to say, internet sales taxes would be a compliance nightmare for small and medium sized retailers.

• Do we really want to make Amazon the largest tax collector in the state/country?!?
  
  Many people already think Amazon is too big and too powerful.  Indeed, this website has recently expressed significant misgivings about their proposed HQ2 in Austin.  If you think Amazon is too big and too powerful now, just wait until they're the largest tax collector in the country.
  
  Consider one example: Amazon very publicly opposed the Texas privacy act this past session; does anyone think they won't threaten to withhold tax revenue in the future?!?

Bottom Line: We're not saying no, but we are saying lets think this one through.

#atxcouncil Greases Skids for Shady Real Estate Deal by Entitled Crony Capitalists (what else is new in this town?!?)....

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Wait a second.  WHAT happened last night?!?  Via Deadspin:

While the Columbus Crew are gearing up for an Eastern Conference Finals matchup with the formidable Toronto FC, their carpetbagging owner Anthony Precourt is continuing his efforts to move the Crew out of Ohio and resettle them in Austin. Last night, the Austin city council voted to look into the viability of building an MLS stadium in the city, which is a boring way to say that they’re happily playing along with Precourt and seem to be serious about this whole MLS business. MLS czar Don Garber has been silent on the matter, even though all of it stands in direct contradiction with the supposed MLS expansion and franchising model. But that, I suppose, is business.

The entire matter still has months to go before it shakes out, and at this juncture it’s still entirely possible that Precourt is simply using Austin as leverage in order to extort Columbus for more public money. Either way, the battle for hearts and minds continues apace. Precourt hired an Austin-based PR firm to sell his plan to the public, which brings us to MLS2ATX, a grassroots organization billing itself as “a community of supporters working together to bring Major League Soccer to Austin, TX.” If you checked out their Facebook page, they might seem to be exactly that.

They are not. MLS2ATX is owned and operated by Precourt Sports Ventures, a fact which they don’t even try to hide. None of their tactics are, say, actively nefarious, it’s just that everything the Precourt group is doing to astroturf the everliving shit out of their move is tacky and cynical.

More from the Statesman:

The resolution, which Tovo’s office drafted, directs city staff to begin an analysis of city-owned land, including underutilized parkland, for possible location of an “urban core” stadium and a large training facility that could be located anywhere in the city.

At this point, an apology: We did not know this particular act of larceny was being fast tracked.  If we had, we would have been at Council yesterday.  Unfortunately, between the unlikely school bond results and the bombshell revelations at the legislature, Council fell off our radar screen.

So, we're sorry.

The spin coming out this morning is that any potential Major League Soccer stadium will be "privately financed."  That could be an improvement over how these deals have traditionally been done.  But just because there isn't a direct payment from the public purse does not mean there aren't other taxpayer financed subsidies.

Off the top of our head:

• Would any land for a potential stadium site be sold to the team at full market value?!?  If the answer to the above question is yes, then what party would make that appraisal?!?

• Would a potential stadium receive preferential tax treatment in the form of property tax abatements?!?

• Tax increment financing?!?

Keep in mind, this is coming from the same people who are refusing to release details of their Amazon pitch to the public.

But here's the genuinely astounding thing about this entire discussion: WE ALREADY HAVE A 20,000 SEAT SOCCER STADIUM IN THE "URBAN CORE" OF AUSTIN.

So we already have a venue that would fulfill the stated needs.  Furthermore, the venue in question happens to be located in a super convenient location for most Austinites.  Furthermore still, the traffic in that part of town is already bad enough that adding the occasional soccer game to the mix would make any difference one way or the other.

The only thing that would need to transpire would be to have the team owner reach an agreement with the University of Texas (and we all know how the University of Texas likes to make money).

But no, we're going to give away valuable publicly owned land to a politically connected crony capitalist team owner to build a superfluous second stadium?!?

Makes total sense.

Bottom Line: Austin Texas already has a 20,000 seat soccer stadium in the urban core; we don't need a second.

#atxcouncil: Open Records Requests begin to reveal (a few) details of "Austin's" Amazon Bid....

"For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."
Luke 8:17

Following our post a couple weeks ago about the Amazon deal, we put in the following open records request to Mayor Adler's office:

All correspondence between the office of the Mayor and the Austin Chamber of commerce related to Amazon.com's HQ2.

The city replied late last week and we reviewed the documents on Saturday.  For the most part, they're punting to the AG's office (note: But that AG letter is actually fascinating).  Still, some questions were answered.

We'll list what we learned here, then provide the full documents below:

• Nothing that has occurred to this point in the process is legally binding on anyone.

• The City of Austin is working with other political subdivisions, but the identity of those political subdivisions remains unknown.
• Note: If we had unlimited time, we'd put in the same open records request to Travis County, WillCo, Cedar Park, Round Rock, Hays Co, and Buda.

• The City has a contract with the chamber for "economic development."
• Note: Excuse you?!?

• LOL: The Austin Chronicle requested the same information we did.

To which we have to say: What's the point of this process if it's not legally binding?!?  We're going to engage in this long secretive process, then we're going to follow it up with an open and transparent public process?!?  That seems...far fetched.

A.G. Letter:

City of Austin OAG Letter 11.3 re: Amazon by Cahnman on Scribd

Information they released:

PIR 37758 Responsive Info by Cahnman on Scribd

Bottom Line:  We had been neutral on this project leaning towards "No" based on the secrecy.  We suppose the information contained in these documents brings us back to neutral.  But the optics surrounding this process stink.

On whose behalf, pray tell, did the Chamber submit "Austin's" Amazon bid?!?

"Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight."
Proverbs 11:1

Soo...this happened:

Austin Texas Region Bid for @amazon HQ2 submitted.

— Austin Chamber (@AustinChamber) October 18, 2017

The natural follow up:

We're sorry, but it is confidential.

— Austin Chamber (@AustinChamber) October 18, 2017

Umm, excuse us?!?

The Chamber of Commerce is submitting an a "Region" bid for the Amazon project, but the public isn't allowed to see any details?!?

To this point, we've been relatively agnostic on Amazon.  We feel similarly to the way we feel as a Yankee fan about signing Bryce Harper.  It might be a mutually beneficial partnership, but only up to a certain price tag.

Instead, we're given a top-secret "process" where the public isn't even permitted to know the price tag; if things don't change soon, this will rapidly become the hellest of no's.

Questions off the top of our head:

• What political subdivisions are involved in this "region" bid?!?
• eg. City of Austin, Travis County, Williamson County, Hays County, Various other ISD's and Cities.

• Are the provisions of this bid legally binding on the afore mentioned political subdivisions?!?

• Was any sort of preferential tax treatment offered?!?
• eg. Tax abatements, tax-increment financing, "Chapter 313" agreements.

• Is the State of Texas involved in this bid?!?

• Will the public be allowed to see the terms of this bid before the relevant political subdivisions commit?!?

• What happens to this "region" bid if some of the political subdivisions want to move forward while others don't?!?

• Are any sort of wage/benefit mandates contained in this bid?!?

Like we said, that's off the top of our head; we're sure we could come up with another 50 to 100 questions if we thought about it for awhile.

This secretive process needs to stop.  Say what you will about some of the stranger proposals other cities have made, at least they're being open with their citizens and taxpayers.  But, apparently, Austin's "civic leaders" think they can write a proposal in secret and who cares what the public thinks.

Good luck with that.

[Note: We've already sent the relevant open records requests.]

Bottom Line: Six months ago, this website helped lead a coalition that defeated Warren Buffett; if things don't change, soon, we can do the same with Jeff Bezos.